"Lord of the Rings" director Peter Jackson announced Monday that “The Hobbit” would be a trilogy instead of the previously planned two films. The first installment is due up this December.
Jackson took to his Facebook page to make his announcement official by saying “So, without further ado and on behalf of New Line Cinema, Warner Bros. Pictures, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Wingnut Films, and the entire cast and crew of 'The Hobbit' films, I’d like to announce that two films will become three."
Jackson’s full statement can be seen on his Facebook page.
However, this statement raises questions about Jackson’s motives. An intelligent person sees this situation as purely a monetary decision. Think about it — two movies would make a lot of money, but adding a third movie will make New Line Cinema and Jackson a lot more money at the box offices.
This whole trend of splitting up a single book into two or three movies started when “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows” was split into two parts in 2009. Since then, other franchises like "Twilight" have followed similar paths.
Adapting books into films has been around for a long time, but why are we only seeing split movies recently? I point my finger to two main things: greed and giving fans what they want — the whole story.
The trend has expanded from book adaptations. Most recently, auteur Lars von Trier (“Melancholia”) made it known that his new film, “The Nymphomaniac,” also will be split into two parts. If one of the most well-known auteur directors of our time has a film being split into two movies, there is merit to the actions of those who came before Trier.
It is hard to believe Trier is making his film in two parts because he wants to make more money. Trier’s films almost never make it to theaters across the world, let alone the United States, whereas the box-office hits, such as the "Harry Potter" or "Twilight" sagas, are seen world-wide from Hollywood to Berlin, making everyone involved loads of money while giving the audience more narrative in the newly developed split finale.
For years, audiences have seen their favorite books become movies, but nearly all those movies fall short when compared to the book. In another part of Jackson’s statement, he tries to sell the point that there are simply too many subplots to be in two movies.
"We know how much of the story of Bilbo Baggins, the Wizard Gandalf, the Dwarves of Erebor, the rise of the Necromancer, and the Battle of Dol Guldur will remain untold if we do not take this chance," he wrote in the statement. "The richness of the story of The Hobbit, as well as some of the related material in the appendices of The Lord of the Rings, allows us to tell the full story of the adventures of Bilbo Baggins and the part he played in the sometimes dangerous, but at all times exciting, history of Middle-earth."
The argument that there is not enough room to fit an entire novel’s storyline into one three-hour long movie is not mute, but it is hard to believe the extra money coming from the second or third movies will make anyone getting a cut of the pie unhappy.
It is nice to finally have adaptations do it right, even if it means waiting a year between Part One and Part Two of the final movie to come out. The blueprints have been made, and audiences around the world are left to wonder if their new favorite series will be split into multiple parts.
As for “The Hobbit,” the first installment — “The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey” — will be released Dec. 14. The second chapter, “The Hobbit: There and Back Again” (title pending) will be released a year later in December 2013. The final episode is rumored to be coming out in the summer or fall of 2014.
Brent Stenstrom is a broadcasting and electronic media junior.
